A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gut flora



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old October 3rd 10, 05:49 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 10/3/10 12:13 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message ...
On 10/1/10 6:56 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote:





Ok, thanks. However -

Testimony of Burton Goldberg
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm

"The NCCAM is presently just a poor cousin in NIH. It needs to be run not by
doctors from or beholden to the NIH, but by physicians who are experienced
in and advocates of alternative methods.


No, it needs to be run by medical scientists who can determine if so-called alternative medicines work. So far, after $1 billion
has been spent, not one alternative medicine has been shown to actually work better than placebo.


The bureacracy at NIH is full of people who serve the interests of the pharmaceutical business with disease which doesn't want the
situation changed. It is making far too much money to let any alternative remedies through.


Evidence, please.

The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 by: Manette Loudon, citizen journalist

http://www.naturalnews.com/011401_Dr...m_the_FDA.html
" The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command
and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The
culture also views industry as the client.
They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me
and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug - Arava - he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on
this report that "industry is our client." "


That's the opinion of one person, with an obvious axe to grind.

A lot of organizations has a hierarchy that says do it the way of the
supervisors or you're out. They make some great products, too, like the
Mac and iPhone with this hierarchy. THe military this type of heirarchy.
And, in science, things have to be done a certain way (like take notes
and keep careful records of experiments as well as rules about human
privacy).

Not only can our doctors show you the multiple causes that lead to cancer,
they offer steps that lead to the removal of these causes. Alternative
medicine does not offer a simplistic "cookbook" solution to cancer
treatment. Rather, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each case, with
certain consistent elements in its approach: mobilize the lymphatic and
excretory systems and then detoxify the body of its many cumulative poisons;
fortify the body with nutrients; do everything possible to strengthen the
immune system; stress the importance of early detection and preventive
strategies; and honor the Hippocratic Oath--first, do no harm.


That's what allopathic doctors do.


Allopathic doctors prescribe drugs, that's what they're trained to do.


They also give vaccines and recommend healthy diets and other preventive
strategies. They do more than prescribe drugs.

Conventional cancer doctors today cannot uphold this vow. Chemotherapy and
radiation are toxic and often do as much damage to the body as the cancer
itself. Even though conventional medicine presents and often forces these
treatments (along with surgery) as the only options in existence for cancer,
this is simply and unequivocally not true. There are many successful
alternatives to conventional care that can remove the root causes of cancer
and restore you to health without further poisoning or damaging your body. "


It's true radiation and chemotherapy are toxic - but 50% of all cancer patients are cured. Show us the evidence that there are
successful alternatives to conventional care. Real evidence. Not just anecdotes.


hydrazine sulfate
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm
"Preliminary animal studies supported his concept and by 1973 about 1,000 cancer patients were using hydrazine sulfate. The FDA
issued a few Investigational New Drug permits and Dr. Gold organized the Syracuse Cancer Research Center to develop the drug and its
protocols. In clinical trials in the United States, the compound significantly improved the nutritional status and survival of lung
cancer patients. In a study of 740 patients with various types of cancer, 51% of patients reported tumor stabilization or
regression. Almost half the patients also reported subjective improvement, notably decreased pain and better appetite. Further, and
this is crucial, similar studies were performed in Russia with almost identical results. Dean Burk, M.D., at that time the head of
cell chemistry research at NCI, called hydrazine sulfate the "most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years of
experience with cancer."


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...ulfate/Patient

http://quackwatch.org/search/webglim...razine+sulfate

Jeff

* * *
"Many books have been written that document the persecution of alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with
inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard of these books because the media does not give them the free
publicity they give their favored books."


  #52  
Old October 3rd 10, 08:16 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 10/3/10 2:16 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:35:29 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:

On 10/3/10 10:52 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message ...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:18:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:

"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:05:07 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, siliclic acid - any of these
ring
a bell?


Silica is also beneficial for bone growth and arterial
health,
amongst
other
things.

Silica is harmful and can cause inflamation if inside the
body. It
is
not
absorbed by the body.

Get a clue errol. Studies have shown that silica is a vital
nutrient, go
do
some homework in pubmed or one of your research books.

I did. It is a toxin. That's about it.

How about silicon dioxide?

Bottom line is that silicon is not a nutrient for humans. If I
am
incorrect, show me *good* evidence.

WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present
in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any
physiological
role.

Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica
and
silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the
biological inertness of these compounds."

Chicken

"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element
controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) at a
level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens
in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at
the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were
noted
after one to two weeks.

At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low
silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group
(p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g
and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).

The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs
appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of
the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner
cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented
group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it
plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle,
1972)."

From a 40-year old study. Big deal.


So if this information has been known for 40 how do you explain the lag in
having it known to the medical establishment?

Carole it was an artificial environment. They artificially deprived
the chickens of all silicon compounds normally available in the
natural diet.

The other Chickens were feed an enriched diet supplemented with
Additional Silicates.

The Test does not say what you think it says.

I suggest you re-read:
Cite Comment
"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept|Describes test subjects
in a trace element controlled environment |They were deprived of
|natural trace element
and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. |Note" the word synthetic
The diet of the test groups |Which of the two groups
|was target
was supplemented |Do you see that word
with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) |That is not silica or even
|silicon dioxide
at a level of 100 mg/kg. |that is about 10-15x the
|normal level found in
|natural diets
/cite |/comments

What the study doesn't say plainly is the artificial control
environment allowed them to deprive the "control group" of any foods
containing "Silica" or any other "trace minerals", and then "test
Group" was given suppliments at least 10 to 15 times the level of
Silica compounds (Sodium Silicate) found non-artifical non-enriched
diets.

In other words they created a false or artificial group as a control.
and then Created a second set of groups with outlandish Suppliments.

So you can understand a "dumbed down" version just for Carole. They
Starved one group and over fed the Second Group and then remarked
about the disparity between the two groups.

Not really much a study, is it Carole? Do See why you have to read
critically?

If I were you I would have start to doubt the validity of the so
called "Briggs-Myers Type Test" you claimed to have taken. It is
plain to just about everyone else but you, that you are not a master
mind or able to see any sort of a big picture.

The test showed that chickens deprived of silica developed abnormalities.
That's the bottom line.

Beats head on desk...

No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for
yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it
and see what the what the study actually showed.



http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.


Wrong. The low-silicon group was a group with low supplements across the
board. When they made the diet for the group with the low silicon, they
removed other minerals, too.

So, low-silicon is really low mineral.


was the Carlisle paper for degree work, if so why wasn't it
challenged for the obvious fallacy? This is very poor work, isn't it?


Kind of reminds of a middle school science project.

  #53  
Old October 5th 10, 01:08 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Gut flora


"Bob Officer" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:52:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:




Beats head on desk...

No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for
yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it
and see what the what the study actually showed.




http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p 0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.


That's what they claim but it isn't true.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.


No Carole read my annotated part up there. Their so called "control
group" wasn't really a "Control Group". You do know what a control
group is, don't you Carole?

In this Study while it claims to use a "control group" for comparison
again a group which was fed suppliments. They actually created a
group which was artificially deprived of all trace elements and
called it a control.


No moron. The purpose of the study was to determine if silica additives to food were harmful or not.
It just so happened that the studies showed the efficacy of silica and the detriment of not adding it.


When the study was at the 23rd day, they compared a group which they
called "a control Group" with a group which was fed supplemented
food.


The study was not flawed, it makes perfect sense and demonstrates quite adequately that silica is essential which we knew already.


Why is the study flawed.

IT is a fallacy of false comparison.


Give up bob, you're clutching at straws.


The control group should have been a Group fed with a "normal" diet.


In your obsessive little mind.


The test was to show suppliments had efficacy over a normal diet. The
test did not prove that. The test should have been called a failure
because they didn't show any efficacy over a normal diet. It did show
that when artificially deprived of trace elements chickens do not do
well.


I think the purpose of the study was to show that silica additves weren't harmful.


They did not even show Silicon is necessary. They artificially
deprived the false group called control subjects of **All Trace
Elements**.


Rubbish.


They fed the test subjects a *supplemented diet* and assumed the
difference was because of the silicates used.

This is not really Quality work.

If this was a PhD paper I wonder how the defendant handled the
argument?

I am sorry if this is just a bit technical for you carole. A control
group is a group which is considered "normalized" for a comparison.

For example if you wanted to do a test to show eating a high Sodium
diet would cause temporary wieght gain (water weight), you would not
create a control group by feeding your control group an artificially
low sodium diet for a week before the test begins, would you?

Reading and understanding any sort of results of any experiment
requires a skill set which must be learned. The use of logic and
critical reading is a must.


Go back to school bob ...no that wouldn't work, you're too set in your ways.
Go and take a panadol and have a lie down.

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William
Pitt (1759-1806)


  #54  
Old October 5th 10, 01:09 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
carole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Gut flora


"dr_jeff" wrote in message ...
On 10/3/10 10:52 AM, carole wrote:






http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.


Wrong. The low-silicon group was a group with low supplements across the board. When they made the diet for the group with the low
silicon, they removed other minerals, too.

So, low-silicon is really low mineral.

Jeff


Stay off the drugs Jeff.

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William
Pitt (1759-1806)





  #55  
Old October 5th 10, 10:24 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Gut flora

On 10/5/10 8:08 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:52:32 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:




Beats head on desk...

No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for
yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it
and see what the what the study actually showed.



http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.


That's what they claim but it isn't true.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.


No Carole read my annotated part up there. Their so called "control
group" wasn't really a "Control Group". You do know what a control
group is, don't you Carole?

In this Study while it claims to use a "control group" for comparison
again a group which was fed suppliments. They actually created a
group which was artificially deprived of all trace elements and
called it a control.


No moron. The purpose of the study was to determine if silica additives to food were harmful or not.
It just so happened that the studies showed the efficacy of silica and the detriment of not adding it.


Wrong. It showed the detriment of not adding any minerals.

When the study was at the 23rd day, they compared a group which they
called "a control Group" with a group which was fed supplemented
food.


The study was not flawed, it makes perfect sense and demonstrates quite adequately that silica is essential which we knew already.


Wrong again. It was flawed. Its design was very poor and didn't test
what they thought they wre testing.

Why is the study flawed.

IT is a fallacy of false comparison.


Give up bob, you're clutching at straws.


Wrong. He is completely correct.

The control group should have been a Group fed with a "normal" diet.


In your obsessive little mind.


And in the study.

The test was to show suppliments had efficacy over a normal diet. The
test did not prove that. The test should have been called a failure
because they didn't show any efficacy over a normal diet. It did show
that when artificially deprived of trace elements chickens do not do
well.


I think the purpose of the study was to show that silica additves weren't harmful.


You think? Wrong.

However, regardless of what What the purpose was, the design didn't
address the purpose.

They did not even show Silicon is necessary. They artificially
deprived the false group called control subjects of **All Trace
Elements**.


Rubbish.


Incorrect.

They fed the test subjects a *supplemented diet* and assumed the
difference was because of the silicates used.

This is not really Quality work.

If this was a PhD paper I wonder how the defendant handled the
argument?

I am sorry if this is just a bit technical for you carole. A control
group is a group which is considered "normalized" for a comparison.

For example if you wanted to do a test to show eating a high Sodium
diet would cause temporary wieght gain (water weight), you would not
create a control group by feeding your control group an artificially
low sodium diet for a week before the test begins, would you?

Reading and understanding any sort of results of any experiment
requires a skill set which must be learned. The use of logic and
critical reading is a must.


Go back to school bob ...no that wouldn't work, you're too set in your ways.
Go and take a panadol and have a lie down.


Nice personal attacks. Your best argument.

Jeff
  #56  
Old October 6th 10, 03:17 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default Gut flora

Bob Officer wrote:

Jeff Carole has the definition of Empiricalism and Rationalism
reversed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

A empiricalism demands experimental Evidence for Justification of
any conclusion. Rationalism is just the opposite and is "any view
appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification"


Yet another of her inconsistencies. She insists that the ancient
meaning of "toxemia" still applies today and now wants the
Enlightenment-era philosophical meaning of "rationalism" to be what
people mean when they use the word today. Contrast this with her
insistence that "allopath" doesn't mean what the inventor of the word
said it did.

In 18th century terms I am an empiricist but definitely neither a
rationalist nor an idealist. I paid my membership subscription to the
Rationalist Association this week and I am a member of Amnesty
International, so I am a 21st century rationalist and idealist.

I'm still an empiricist, because the meaning of that word hasn't
changed.

Carole should not mistake cant for Kant (and no, there is no missing
apostrophe).


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.